Wednesday, June 29, 2016

The UK
research community’s response to the recent referendum – in which a majority of
52% voted for the UK to leave the European Union (or “Brexit”) – has been one
of horror and disbelief.

This
is no surprise, not least because Brexit would have a serious impact on research
funding in the UK. Naturereports
that UK universities currently get around 16% of their research funding from
the EU, and that the UK currently hosts more EU-funded holders of ERC grants than any other member state. Elsewhere,
Digital Science has estimated
that the UK could lose £1 billion in science funding if the UK government does
not make up the shortfall in EU-linked research funds.

And a
recent Outsell report noted that EU research funds accounted for, on average,
more than £900m of funding each year between 2009 and 2015, or the equivalent
of one-third of the competitive funding provided by the UK’s research agencies.

But what
are the implications of Brexit for open access? Given the highly volatile
situation the UK now finds itself in we cannot say anything for certain.
However, any squeeze on funding will surely be detrimental to current plans to migrate
scholarly publishing from a subscription to an open access system.

It
is, after all, generally agreed that the transition to open access will require
additional funding, if only in the short term. To this we should add that the
UK has been one of the main advocates for open access within the EU, and
globally.

Meanwhile, the other major advocate for open access in Europe – The Netherlands
– is about to give up its Presidency of the EU. During their Presidency, the
Dutch managed to persuade member states to agree to a commitment to make all
scientific papers freely available by 2020.

There
was always scepticism as to how achievable the EU goal is, but Brexit would
seem to make it much less achievable. As The Wellcome Trust’s Robert Kiley points
out on the questions I have posed about OA and Brexit, “The EU recently set
a target of 100 per cent OA by 2020. How this was to be achieved was unclear,
but without the UK at the table arguments in favour of gold will be less vocal.”

So what
do OA advocates think about the current situation? Below long-time proponent of
open access, and Professor of Structural Biology at Imperial College London, Stephen Curry offers some thoughts.

As
an indication of just how uncertain the situation is note that Stephen asked me to preface his answers with this statement: “Readers
should please bear in mind that my answers have been composed while I am still
keenly feeling the pain and confusion surrounding the outcome of the EU
referendum. Ask me again tomorrow and my answers could well be different.”

Stephen Curry

The interview begins …

RP:
I realise that Brexit raises more pressing issues for UK academics than any
impact it might have on the transition to open access, and that much still
remains uncertain about how Brexit will play out, but what in your view would
be the likely implications for open access if the kind of fears expressed in,
for instance, this piece in Physics Today were to be realised?

SC: You’re right that there are many more
pressing issues – loss of funding, loss of a leadership role within EU research
programs, loss of influence – to say nothing of the fact that the UK now feels
a much more unwelcoming place to students and staff from overseas.

The
scale of this seems unimaginable. And everyone is disorientated because it’s
clear that there is no plan for Brexit at the moment. It is all still to be
worked out.

In
the meantime, there is still the hope that the process of leaving will unravel;
that the country, seeing the damage being inflicted, will find some way to step
back. But even that just adds to the ongoing confusion and uncertainty. With
all this going on, it is hard even to think about OA.

RP: Brexiteers
say
that it is “unlikely that universities will be bereft of funding”. But how
confident can we be that Brexit will have little or no impact on university
funding, and that if the UK does suffer economically costs for open access will
not be one of the first victims?

SC: Brexiters have consistently underplayed
the risks and costs of leaving the EU – as has already become plain.

The
UK is a net contributor to the EU overall but ‘wins’ in terms of research
funding. That will disappear if our subsequent agreement (and when will that be
fashioned?) doesn't include a commitment
to freedom of movement, and that doesn’t seem likely right now.

Even
if we save on the EU contribution (by no means guaranteed, especially if we
want access to the single market), the ongoing decline in the pound, the drop
in the stockmarket and the flight of industries and jobs will likely propel the
economy into recession, reducing tax receipts and the possibility that the
government will be able to ‘compensate’ UK science for the loss of EU funds. To
do so the government would have to demonstrate a commitment to investing in
R&D that has not been evident from past settlements of flat cash or, more recently,
flat value.

In
those circumstances, there could well be pressure on funds for OA. But perhaps
that might make RCUK/UKRI get
tough on fundees to seek value for money when publishing? They’ve been
reluctant to date but these are strange times. Who knows?

RP: In
2013 RCUK anticipated
that a full transition to open access would be completed within “around five
years” [2018] and that by that time 75% of OA papers would be published as gold
OA. It is also now widely accepted that – at least in the short term – a
transition to open access will require additional funding (to pay the APCs
generally needed for gold OA). If UK research funders and institutions faced a
reduction in funding as a result of Brexit might the money needed for a
transition to OA no longer be available, or significantly curtailed? If so,
what sort of threat would that present for the OA movement?

SC: I think there’s a risk of that. I’m never
sure what you mean by “the OA movement” – to me it’ is a heterogeneous
collection of individuals and organisations with diverse emphases on the key
articles of the various declarations – but it would pose a challenge to those
of us in the UK who advocate the wider adoption of OA for scholarly research.
I, for one, am up for that challenge. The argument for OA remains unchanged and
the means to achieve it have always been the subject of debate.

RP: One
possibility, I guess, is that much greater stress would be placed on green OA.
But green OA does not offer any kind of transition to open access does it? And
as publishers impose ever more onerous embargo conditions does green OA really
offer a realistic long-term solution?

SC: That could be a direction to go in,
particularly with the start of the HEFCE policy. I don’t think green OA is the
long-term solution though it’s an effective interim measure. We will have to be
vigilant in spotting and calling out extensions to embargo periods –
particularly since I have not seen any convincing evidence that they are a cost
to publishers.

RP: Presumably
there are also implications for the EU. Along with The Netherlands, the UK has
been the main driver of OA at a European level. As a result, in April the Amsterdam
Call for Action on Open Science set a target of achieving full open access
for all scientific publications by 2020 [A goal subsequently agreed
on by the ministers of science, innovation, trade, and industry of member
states at the May Competitiveness Council]. With the UK set to leave the EU
might we see a fall-off in interest in OA within the EU?

SC: The UK has certainly been an influential
voice (even if it hasn’t been able to induce many other nations to follow it
down the gold-preferring route), but it is by no means the only one as far as I
can tell.

The
whole Brexit process could well be a huge distraction for the rest of the EU so
perhaps the 2020 deadline (rather notional in any case for some?) might slip.
But perhaps not – the HEFCE
policy should be effective in achieving the aspiration in the UK and that
could be an example for others. I’m not as clued into EU machinations as some
but I will be sorry that the UK is excluded from EU discussions on OA.

Hope
springs eternal: perhaps there are clever and pragmatic ways we might still be
involved. There would be no want of volunteers in my view.

RP: While
there has been much discussion over what the UK might lose financially as a
result of Brexit, the UK is the third largest contributor to the EU budget. If
it leaves, therefore, presumably the EU will face a 12.5% fall in its budget.
Again, if transitioning to open access will – at least in the short term – cost
more, is it not likely that the EU will need to cut its cloth, and that in
doing so it will conclude that open access is not as high a priority as it was?

SC: The UK is a net contributor so I guess
there will be some contraction of the EU budget. It won’t be 12.5% because the
size of the EU would also fall if the UK leaves. The EU has its own economic
woes but investors looking to exit the UK could well end up in the EU, so who
knows what the net effect will be?

Part
of the argument for OA in science and engineering is to disseminate the raw
material for developing new technologies, and that hasn’t gone away. If
anything the pressures of Brexit could make it seem more needed than ever. Who
knows?

RP: What
if any implications for OA are there here for those in North America and the
rest of the world?

SC: If the UK loses some of its
momentum on OA, I wonder if the some of the noise it has created around OA
might be lost.

RP: What
does this all mean for scholarly publishers?

SC: This is a fantastic opportunity for them
to demonstrate what they really mean when they talk about being “partners” with
the research community. I hope many will seize that opportunity to make a
positive contribution to the situation.

Any
hint of publishers seeking to take advantage of what is going to be a painful
period for the UK research community should be called out and opposed. Like I
said, hope springs eternal.